passage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing that every text carries a source citation and by enumerating exactly what interlinear mode returns (transliteration, gloss, Strong's, lemma, lexicon gloss, morphology). It stops short of saying what happens on an unresolvable reference or whether translations other than BSB are available.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the optional-mode detail. The parenthetical field list is dense but each item is informative rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description suffices: it names the translation, the reference input, the optional per-word expansion and the presence of citations. Remaining gaps (error behavior, reference-range edge cases) are minor for a simple lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for both parameters: 'ref' is illustrated with three concrete reference formats, and 'interlinear' is spelled out field by field. Only minor gaps remain, such as the default-off behavior and accepted range/boundary syntax.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (verse text in BSB plus original-language text) keyed to a reference, with concrete reference examples ('John 3:16', 'Rom 8:28-30', 'Ps 23'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'word' or 'search', whose per-word and lookup functions partially overlap with interlinear mode.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the examples show the expected reference syntax, and interlinear=true is described as an optional enrichment. There is no statement of when to prefer this over 'word', 'search' or 'commentary', nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.